Welcomed with open arms? Not always

Friday

Dec 7, 2012 at 6:00 AM

In “The Story of Colonial Lancaster,” Marion Safford writes that early town officials sometimes banned “undesirables” from settling here. Historian Abijah Marvin confirms this in his “History of Lancaster.” He writes that, after 1653, people were permitted to take up residence in town “provided they are such as acceptable” and “worthy of acceptance, according to the committee appointment.”

Marvin explains that, in 1657, Lancaster’s commissioners appointed specific men as selectmen who would regulate and manage the town’s affairs. One of the strict regulations they established stated that people could not be “entertained as inmates or tenants” within the town’s boundaries, without consent of the selectmen. Not everyone was permitted to enjoy Lancaster’s accommodations, vote, participate in elections or have privileges and interests in regard to the town. According to Safford, these rules were enforced.

Safford writes that, in 1661, William Lincoln was banned from Lancaster because he was poor. Labeled an intruder, he was told to “withdraw yourself and family, and to depart the town forthwith, in regard the townsmen utterly disclaim you as an inhabitant.”

Until he left, Lincoln was instructed to pay 20 shillings each month “which will be a burden, it may be too heavy for you to bear though procured by yourself.” Nevertheless, Safford adds, he remained “and never became a public charge.” Evidently, Lincoln had some gumption — or perhaps no place else to go.

Another case was that of George Newby, a man accused of “high-handed contempt for God’s word; reproaches of the minister and profane neglect of God’s public worship on the Lord’s day, and high-handed debauching.” Newby’s sentence “was that he should receive 20 stripes on his naked body and give bonds of 20 pounds for his appearance at court in Cambridge.”

Today this sounds appalling and Marvin admits that these regulations seemed strange, even back in 1879 when he penned Lancaster’s history. But, he explains, at the time of Lancaster’s establishment, life necessitated such limitations for the well-being of all. And other towns had these rules in effect for more than 100 years.

Strict enforcement meant that people could not purchase land unless they chose to reside on it because absentee owners would take away the security and “prevented speculation on the rise of land without sharing in the toil and danger of improvement.” As well, servants and hired men, who might exhibit bad character and behavior, would not be sent to Lancaster to cultivate the land. “Vicious persons would be disorderly; the situation was critical, the danger of giving provocation to the Indians would be increased, and it would require, but a light matter to destroy the settlement.”

Where people could build houses was regulated as well. Narrow lots with dwellings situated close together helped keep the settlers safe and secure. And historian Henry Nourse suggests that people needed to live in the closest neighborhoods for the convenience of the Church.

Today, Lancaster welcomes a variety of newcomers. Unfortunately, but for reasons that are perhaps understandable, it hasn’t always been this way. We need to remember that the “good old days” weren’t always so good.